Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

breitbart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 486 posts

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#461

Post by whack »

belorn wrote: post #458
whack wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To put forth either of these as reasons to restrict immigration from one set of countries, and encourage immigration from another, almost always gets you labeled a racist That is the very definition of racism. You're ascribing negative traits to specific races/ethnicities/countries, and using that as justification for discriminating against all individuals from that demographic. If you want to advocate for racist p…

When the right talk about toxic and destructive cultures and suggest policy to address it then that is racism and discrimination. When the left talk about toxic and destructive masculinity and suggest policy to address it then that is using clear language and decisive action about a structural issue in society. We could be making sensible policies based on each individuals own merit and it would be great. No more wom…

I'd consider myself a liberal, and I'm opposed to any and all attempts to discriminate against an entire demographic group, based on negative traits that are (supposedly) statistically common. Regardless of whether the group in question is Mexicans/Whites/Females/Males/Muslims. I would consider anyone espousing such ideology to be racist/sexist by definition. There are certainly fringe bigots in the left, but I'm sure the majority of Clinton voters feel similarly as I do.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#462

Post by rsj_hn »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #376
tcbawo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology and information overload are driving everybody to think their viewpoint is the suppressed majority, feeding a victim mentality. We seem to be working towards more of a massively individual polyculture than monoculture. Also, we shouldn't always project everything into right and left, as there are other orthogonal dimensions for framing policy (eg. authoritarian and individualistic). That's a hidden cost of…

There's an interesting thought experiment. Break America in half by general partisan divide - allow for free migration based on political ideology alone. How long would it take before these now wholly 'unified' halves then turn to bitter and polar divisiveness? What would be the new divisive topics? There's probably roughly a 0% chance of success, but Calexit would be a phenomenal social experiment and perhaps someth…

I don't think it would take long at all, sadly.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#463

Post by codeonfire »

megous wrote: post #287
codeonfire wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you surprised? Google invented infantilism of their workers. They invented basic colors, office slides, and office ball pits. They make new employees wear propeller hats. They want a naive "ender's game" work force while their business of monitoring the web browsing and location of hundreds of millions of people is actually very serious.

I was wondering about the abundance of propeller hats in the audience, if it's some insider joke or what. But seriously, new employees have to wear propeller hats?!

It is an inside joke marking employees as stupid childish marks. As if to say that the person is someone management has identified who will at least pretend to be ignorant and naive as a child. That is the whole basis behind this infantilization shit.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#464

Post by smsm42 »

whack wrote: post #461
belorn wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the right talk about toxic and destructive cultures and suggest policy to address it then that is racism and discrimination. When the left talk about toxic and destructive masculinity and suggest policy to address it then that is using clear language and decisive action about a structural issue in society. We could be making sensible policies based on each individuals own merit and it would be great. No more wom…

I'd consider myself a liberal, and I'm opposed to any and all attempts to discriminate against an entire demographic group, based on negative traits that are (supposedly) statistically common. Regardless of whether the group in question is Mexicans/Whites/Females/Males/Muslims. I would consider anyone espousing such ideology to be racist/sexist by definition. There are certainly fringe bigots in the left, but I'm sur…

> I'd consider myself a liberal, and I'm opposed to any and all attempts to discriminate against an entire demographic group, based on negative traits that are (supposedly) statistically common

Good for you. Any ideas about how to get people talking about "toxic masculinity" and "evil whiteness" day and night on board? How about people that call for "white genocide"?

> I would consider anyone espousing such ideology to be racist/sexist by definition.

OK. But would the consequences of this definition for someone publicly talking about "toxic masculinity" as something common to most/all males be the same as being an open misogynist, for example? And if not, do you think it's wrong and how would you propose to change it?

> I'm sure the majority of Clinton voters feel similarly as I do.

Do they? How comes somebody like Farrakhan is still very much welcome to the polite society on the left?

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#465

Post by didibus »

rphlx wrote: post #432
didibus wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how so? I guess I'm putting forward two points: 1) Being a hateful person with a desire to oppress innocents seems to aptly qualify for the label of monster. 2) Those who equate republicans with monsters do so because of the republicans' current active support and promotion of hateful people and their desire to oppress the innocents. Nothing here seems unfair to me, or irrational. I feel it all simply…

The view that someone is automatically a monster or an "oppressor" because they voted Republican is wrong and offensive in the extreme. It is possible to vote Republican without wholly supporting - let alone personally imitating - everything that Trump does, just as it is possible to vote Democrat without wholly supporting everything Obama did. You vote for the party that gives you the most of what you want and has a…

> The view that someone is automatically a monster or an "oppressor" because they voted Republican is wrong and offensive in the extreme.

Yes, I agree and that's not what I'm saying at all. The view I'm talking about is that the Republican party has associated itself with such people, that a number of their ranks is composed of such people, and that some of their agenda is supportive of such people. Thus if you identify yourself as a Republican, it's normal to wonder if you could be one of those people.

So it's the other way around. Voting Republican does not make you a monster, but monsters make up the Republican party.

Bigots are rallying behind the Republican party, and it seems to be letting them in with open arms. This in turn has the effect of having people question the true values of all Republicans. When someone then tells me they're Republican, I need to ask... Oh, so, are you racist? Or sexist? Or bigot? Or anti-semitist? Etc.

And that's because the Republican party has chosen to blur the lines. This was not always the case. It's a new phenomenon.

> You vote for the party that gives you the most of what you want and has a reasonable chance of being elected

Well, sure, but I feel you need to consider the pros and the cons. Otherwise it's a deal with the devil.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#466

Post by toomuchtodo »

xianb wrote: post #131
0x8BADF00D wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why hasn’t anyone hosted it on YouTube yet? Serious question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gPdrlyc84 people have, but who knows how long it'll last

"Removed by user"

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#467

Post by curtis3389 »

mirror_mirror wrote: post #373
woodruffw wrote: post #38

For those interested in watching the video without feeding into Brietbart's ad/engagement numbers, I've mirrored it here: https://yossarian.net/google.mp4

I'm not positive I've done this correctly, but I tried uploading it to IPFS. If someone could let me know if that works, I'd appreciate it. QmX5wjpMyWrtwHQnJ6L8BMAnUGgxwJqnoLbTCJbmWD1gqG - 720p QmNPNYTMD95vc6PZtH5QFgLTj22cNkWm6TTCi7YGKY3kD3 - 270p

I've never tried to download something this big via IPFS, but navigating to " rel="nofollow">https://ipfs.io/ipfs/ seems to just hang

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#468

Post by supernovae »

monochromatic wrote: post #445
supernovae wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, she was. It's a systemic problem in American society. Your comment is essentially proof of your bias. Unless you want to back it up and say everyone is a moron because once again, everyone has said things that could categorically quantify them as a moron - but your holding HER and specifically HER to a special case.

>every criticism of a woman is a criticism because she’s a woman K.

keep kidding yourself (oh, and so glad you can downvote instead of have honest discussion)

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#469

Post by droopybuns »

cromwellian wrote: post #319

Seems no one understands Popper's Paradox. Lots of talk about it being unfair that a workplace is intolerant of people who are intolerant. There are just some values that are not negotiable for a modern, civilized, homogeneous society. We're not talking about debates about the level of social welfare, or regulation, we're talking about common decency of treating people equally, regardless of gender, sexuality, or eth…

Reason:

Narcissist finds it convienient to assume all who disagree with them are ethnonationalists.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#470

Post by mirror_mirror »

curtis3389 wrote: post #467
mirror_mirror wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not positive I've done this correctly, but I tried uploading it to IPFS. If someone could let me know if that works, I'd appreciate it. QmX5wjpMyWrtwHQnJ6L8BMAnUGgxwJqnoLbTCJbmWD1gqG - 720p QmNPNYTMD95vc6PZtH5QFgLTj22cNkWm6TTCi7YGKY3kD3 - 270p

I've never tried to download something this big via IPFS, but navigating to " rel="nofollow">https://ipfs.io/ipfs/ seems to just hang

Sorry. It looks like I made a mistake while publishing initially. It should be working now. I was able to at least verify the lowres version.

https://ipfs.tube/#QmNPNYTMD95vc6PZtH5QFgLTj22cNkWm6TTCi7YGK...

I may have to do some finagling, since I'm new to IPFS, and never have dealt with files this large on IPFS either.

Edit:

Looks like the highres version also should be working

https://ipfs.tube/#QmX5wjpMyWrtwHQnJ6L8BMAnUGgxwJqnoLbTCJbmW...

Post reply on HN